Intellectuals and
the Left

The most talented Israeli intellectuals and
writers frequently display gross political naiveté.

Amos Oz is an Israeli icon, recognized throughout
the world as the doyen of the Israel literary arena. His books, primarily
relating to the wide spectrum of life in Israel, are enormously popular and
have been translated into many languages.
Oz, always regarded as a supporter of the left,
was also admired as a consummate and devoted Zionist. Until recent years, he
expressed his political views with gentle restraint and moderation and was
perceived as a national rather than partisan intellectual.
...In contrast today, Oz unhesitatingly exploits
every opportunity, even when abroad, to bitterly demonize his government.
Moreover, his criticism has become so vehement to the extent that he
effectively blames Israel for the impasse with the Palestinians.
Most recently, Oz even proudly publicized his
prison visits to Marwan Barghouti, the Palestinian terrorist condemned for five
life sentences for the murder of five Israelis plus other orchestrated attacks
on Israeli civilians and who only recently called for a third intifada and
global boycott of Israel. Sadly, Oz morally identified himself with Barghouti,
insisting that they both share the same national objectives and expressed the
fervent hope that the ruthless killer would soon be released.
David Grossman, another highly acclaimed and
talented Israeli writer whose son was killed during the Second Lebanon War,
behaves in a similar manner. He recently penned an op-ed in the viciously
anti-Israeli UK Guardian proclaiming that the greatest threat confronting the
Jewish state is not Iran but the paranoia of its leaders.
These two writers exemplify the irresponsibility
and extremism that has consumed a number of prominent leftist Israeli
intellectuals and academics.
Needless to say, they are hailed as heroes by
Israel's "elitist" but dramatically declining newspaper Ha'aretz,
which over the past decade has radicalized itself to such an extent that it is
recognized as one of the most potent sources for global anti-Israeli
propaganda. The extent of this newspaper’s venom - directed from the “top” -
was recently demonstrated in an op-ed written by the publisher, Amos Schocken
who accused his country of becoming an "apartheid" state and last
week in an editorial which criticized President Peres for “publicly” calling on
President Obama to release Pollard.
It is hard to comprehend how seemingly rational
educated Jews can behave in such a manner. Of course, Jews turning against
themselves are not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages Jewish apostates
emerged as the most vicious anti-Semites. But one can rationalize that their disgusting
behavior may have been motivated by an obsession to ingratiate themselves
within their host societies.
Likewise the alienation from Judaism of Karl Marx
and many of the early Jewish socialists could be attributed to desperation for
emancipation from what they considered to be a stifling religious and ethnic
identity in order to qualify as cosmopolitan citizens of the world.
The same can also be said for the Jewish
Communists who vigorously applauded as Stalin executed their kinsman and
justified the persecution of Soviet Jews. Many of them convinced themselves
that by destroying Jewish particularism, they were paving the way for a
messianic secular era in which the brotherhood and equality of all men would
resolve the Jewish problem.
But after the Holocaust and with the creation of
a Jewish state, one surely expected less alienation and a more rational
approach.
Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, a genuine
social-democrat, was highly conscious that left-wing extremists represented a
major threat to the Zionist enterprise. He was especially scathing towards the
Marxist Mapam which continued to idolize the murderous Stalin and the Soviet
Union - even after Mordecai Oren, one of their senior political leaders, had
been arrested in Czechoslovakia in 1951 during the Prague Trials on trumped-up
charges of having acted as a CIA agent.
But after Khrushchev's exposure of Stalin's “Cult
of the Personality”, the loony left in Israel was marginalized to splinter
groups like Matzpen.
The dominant Labor Party was uncompromising in
its commitment to the State of Israel and proudly stood at the forefront of
Zionism. It had no truck with the post Zionist intellectuals and ensured that
they were isolated and condemned.
It was only following the huge public divide over
the Oslo Accords that the Zionist left began to fragment. Although Rabin
himself remained a steadfast Zionist throughout his life, de facto he became
allied with a new breed of labor activists, many of whom flirted with post-Zionism.
Dr. Yossi Beilin, a key architect of the Oslo Accords, even expressed public
regret that his grandfather, one of the original Chovevei Zion delegates to the
early Zionist Congresses, had voted against Herzl's plan to adopt Uganda as a
Zionist homeland.
Some Labor leaders, in order to alleviate public
hostility about the “peace process”, felt obliged to defend the Arab case and
began understating or trivializing statements by Arafat and other Palestinians
leaders who were telling their people that Oslo was merely a preliminary step
towards achieving the ultimate objective of destroying the Zionist entity. They
also suppressed the mounting evidence that the duplicitous Arafat was actually
directing terrorism.
This impacted on our response to terror with
repeated mindless statements, even from Rabin, that we would fight terror but
continue pursuing peace - with the very same Palestinians initiating the
terror.
As a result, the Zionist core of the labor
movement rapidly eroded, with extremist radicals emerging and expressing
sentiments that would have been considered treasonable during the period of the
Mapai hegemony. Ultimately the radicals all but hijacked the Labor Party.
Of course, criticism of Israel is a guaranteed
passport for elevation to heroic stature in certain Western liberal quarters,
and thus represents an additional incentive for failed Israeli politicians like
Avram Burg and his ilk to join the anti-Israeli pack and act as principal
propagandists of the adversaries of Israel.
The situation became exacerbated in recent years
with a major change in public perceptions and the emergence of a consensus
moving the country somewhat to a right of center approach to the
Israel-Palestinian impasse, thus further marginalizing the far left. To the
dismay of the radicals, , their bête noire, Netanyahu, far from being reviled ,
emerged as the most popular leader.
Oz and Grossman are neither post-Zionists nor
self-hating Jews. They unquestionably love Israel. But the public support of
the government appears to have unhinged them and a number of other “doves”. In
their frenzied desperation to dissociate themselves from the national consensus
which broadly endorses Netanyahu, they succumbed to employing vitriolic
language that comes perilously close to being indistinguishable from the
anti-Zionist left.
One can only hope that under the new leadershipof Shelly Yachomovich,the Labor Party will reaffirm
the Zionist credo and encourage Labor Zionists who lost the plot, to return to
the fold.

Queensland Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie said banning the Hammered music
festival, is expected to draw white supremacists from Australia and overseas, is
out of the question in the interests of free speech.

Bleijie was quoted by the Brisbane Times as saying that he was "disgusted" by
the major white-pride event to be held in Brisbane this weekend, but added that
“while the government does not condone neo-Nazi or extremist
beliefs, it is not illegal to hold an event such as this.
"The Queensland government will not ban this festival, but any attendees
who incite or commit violence or racism will be dealt with by the police,” he
warned.

Poster promoting
festivalAccording to the Brisbane Times, former independent member for Burnett Rob
Messenger, who launched a Parliamentary e-Petition against the “Neo Nazi, race
hatred-inspired gathering,” said he was frustrated the views of nearly 2000
petition signatories had been ignored.
He claimed allowing Hammered to proceed made Queensland a national “laughing
stock.”

“The government, I believe, under current Queensland laws, has the ability to
stop the rally,” Messenger was quoted by the Brisbane Times as saying.
"I believe that it breaches anti-discrimination (legislation) as it stands,
but in the meantime, and at the very least, the (Attorney-General) should untie
the hands of the Queensland police and allow them to investigate the concert
promoters and their public advertising.”The Brisbane Times said the Hammered Festival is organized by a group called
the Southern Cross Hammerskins, a local branch of an international association
spawned from the American white power skinhead movement.This is the first year the three-year-old festival will be held in Brisbane,
the report said, and websites promoting the event say it coincides with the 20th
anniversary of the Southern Cross Hammerskins in Australia.
Other websites promoting the festival contain pro-Nazi media including
YouTube video clips celebrating Adolf Hitler, according
to the report.

THE problematic nature of massive funding from European governments to NGOs active in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict is regularly part of the public debate in Israel.

Now issues related to Australian funding for such organisations has become part of this important conversation.

In a new report, Shurat HaDin (Israel Law Centre) presents "conclusive evidence" that a Gaza-based organisation supported by two Australian groups is linked to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terror group.

The report explains that the Australian Agency for International Development and World Vision Australia are "providing financial aid and other forms of material support to the Union of Agricultural Work Committees, an agency of the proscribed terror organisation the PFLP."

The possibility that Australian government funding is being transferred to organisations affiliated with a terror group reflects a wider problem. As demonstrated by research by NGO Monitor, an independent, non-profit organisation based in Jerusalem, substantial AusAID funding is channelled through Australian NGO intermediaries to NGOs that claim a "human rights" mandate, but in reality pursue agendas counterproductive to peace.

In fact, numerous Australian-funded NGOs are active in anti-Israel demonisation campaigns such as BDS (boycotts, divestment and sanctions).

Along with funding World Vision Australia, in 2010-2011 AusAID provided $5.5 million to APHEDA, Actionaid Australia, and CARE Australia. This funding is conducted within the framework of the Australia Middle East NGO Co-operation Program, which claims the noble goal of "improving food security and the livelihoods of Palestinians and strengthening the community organisations that provide them with basic services".

But, as is the case with European funding, the stated goals of NGOs often do not square with their actual activities.

As NGO Monitor has shown, APHEDA, for example, engages in activities that fuel the conflict and do not promote humanitarian objectives. APHEDA campaigns for a one-sided and immoral arms embargo that would impair Israeli defence against terror attacks, uses demonising "apartheid" language, endorses the so-called Palestinian "right of return" and partners with organisations promoting BDS and "lawfare" tactics. Its Middle East tours have served as the basis for promoting BDS campaigns in Australia.

Last year, Australian senator Eric Abetz criticised APHEDA for its work with a pro-BDS Palestinian NGO, but no changes were implemented to better monitor and evaluate Australian government funding. As a result, Australian NGOs continue to partner with and provide funding to Palestinian NGOs that are active in BDS campaigns and other anti-Israel demonisation.

CARE Australia receives AusAID funding for a joint project with Ma'an Development Centre and the Applied Research Institute Jerusalem. While ARIJ claims to be a "non-profit organisation dedicated to promoting sustainable development in the occupied Palestinian territories and the self-reliance of the Palestinian people through greater control over their natural resources", its activities promote the conflict. Along with supporting BDS campaigns, a December 2008 publication labels Jerusalem's mayor a "racist" who supports "ethnic cleansing".

In 2009, Ma'an Development Centre published Boycotts, Divestment & Sanctions: Lessons learned in effective solidarity, a guide to grassroots and international BDS campaigns. Instances of delegitimisation of Israel include a "case study" about a farmer from Qalqilya that refers to "consecutive occupation governments since 1948". This is one of many examples in which such NGOs are continuing the war waged by Arab leaders against Israel from the moment that the state became independent.

Such activities are entirely inconsistent with promoting peace based on mutual understanding and reconciliation.

These government-funded organisations are undermining Australian government policies that foster values necessary for such a peace to exist. This funding not only provides a lifeline for these groups to sustain or expand highly politicised activities, but it also provides a stamp of approval when they seek additional funding for other projects and from other sources.

The questions that have been raised about AusAID and World Vision Australia pose an opportunity for constructive action by the Australian government. It does not make sense that Australian taxpayers would fund groups whose destructive activities run entirely counter to the policies and principles of their government.

A serious investigation into NGO funding and partnerships, including the possibility of terror connections, would be a positive first step towards increasing accountability and towards eventually adopting clear, enforceable guidelines.

Also see these postings on the Friends of Israel Western Australia blog:

The full question, and her full reply, as posted on the U.S. State Department website follows (follow this link to the full transcript):

Questioner: After the electoral campaign starts in the United States – it started some time ago – we noticed here in Tunisia that most of the candidates from the both sides run towards the Zionist lobbies to get their support in the States. And afterwards, once they are elected, they come to show their support for countries like Tunisia and Egypt for a common Tunisian or a common Arab citizen. How would you reassure and gain his trust again, once given the fact that you are supporting his enemy as well at the same time?Clinton: Well, first, let me say, you will learn as your democracy develops that a lot of things are said in political campaigns that should not bear a lot of attention. There are comments made that certainly don’t reflect the United States, don’t reflect our foreign policy, don’t reflect who we are as a people. I mean, if you go to the United States, you see mosques everywhere, you see Muslim Americans everywhere. That’s the fact. So I would not pay attention to the rhetoric.Secondly, I would say watch what President Obama says and does. He’s our president. He represents all of the United States, and he will be re-elected president, so I think that that will be a very clear signal to the entire world as to what our values are and what our president believes.So I think it’s a fair question because I know that – I sometimes am a little surprised that people around the world pay more attention to what is said in our political campaigns than most Americans, say, are paying attention. So I think you have to shut out some of the rhetoric and just focus on what we’re doing and what we stand for, and particularly what our president represents.

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed

Copyright Notice

JIW includes excerpts from many sources using their copyright material for the purpose of education and discussion only, and not for profit. We acknowledge and link to our sources.We reserve all rights to our own original material, including the excerpted and edited version of the source material. However you are welcome to use JIW material freely for the purpose of education and discussion only, and not for profit, and provided proper acknowledgement is included.